■ 

LO 

r^ 

Cr- 

_ 

OvJ 

■ 

CJ 

1 

>- 

LIBRARY 


University  of  California. 


RECEIVED    BY    EXCHANGE 


Class 


ARCHAEOLOGY 


BY 


JAMES  RIGNALL  WHEELER 

PROFESSOR   OF   GREEK  ARCHAEOLOGY   AND   ART 
COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY 


UNIVERSITY  UBRARY, 
«i«KEL£y,  CAUfORNlA. 


THE  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
1908 


ARCHAEOLOGY 


A  LECTURE  DELIVERED  AT  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 

IN  THE  SERIES  ON  SCIENCE,  PHILOSOPHY  AND  ART 

JANUARY  8,  1908 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/archaeologyalectOOwheerich 


ARCHAEOLOGY 


BY 


JAMES  RIGNALL  WHEELER 

PROFESSOR   OF   GREEK  ARCHAEOLOGY  AKD  ART 
COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY 


UNIVERSITY  UBRARY, 
e.KKELEY.CAUFMNlA. 

■^     Of  THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


THE  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
1908 


Copyright,  1908, 
By  THE  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS. 

Set  up,  and  published  February,  1908. 


ARCHAEOLOGY 


If  any  layman  were  to  ask  a  number  of  archaeologists  to 
give,  on  the  spur  of  the  moment,  a  definition  of  archaeology, 
I  suspect  that  such  a  person  might  find  the  answers  rather 
confusing.  He  would,  perhaps,  sympathize  with  Socrates 
who,  when  he  hoped  to  learn  from  the  poets  and  artisans 
something  about  the  arts  they  practised,  was  forced  to  go 
away  with  the  conviction  that,  though  they  might  them- 
selves be  able  to  accomplish  something,  they  certainly  could 
give  no  clear  account  to  others  of  what  they  were  trying  to 
do.  If  one  considers  some  of  the  current  definitions  of 
archaeology,  one  finds  them  often  so  inclusive  that  the  great 
subject  of  history  seems  forced  into  a  subordinate  position, 
or  else  history  may  seem  to  differ  from  archaeology  only 
in  the  fact  that  it  may  treat  of  present  events,  while  archae- 
ology deals  with  the  past.  Thus  one  of  the  greatest  classi- 
cal archaeologists  of  the  last  generation,  the  late  Sir  Charles 
Newton,  defines  archaeology  as  the  scientific  study  of  the 
human  past,  and  describes  its  three-fold  subject  matter  as 
oral,  written  and  monumental.  Such  a  definition  is  of 
course  enormously  inclusive  and,  as  might  be  expected,  it 
has  hardly  found  general  acceptance.  As  archaeological 
study  has  advanced,  the  tendency  has  been  to  confine  its 
subject  matter  to  the  material  remains  of  man's  past — 
material  remains  being  thought  of  as  a  sort  of  antithesis  to 
literary  remains,  or  written  documents,  which  fall  spe- 
cifically within  the  domain  of  history.    There  must,  how* 

5 


203480 


ever,  often  be  cases  where  a  written  record  bears  so  close  a 
relation  to  a  material  monument  of  the  past  as  to  become 
wholly  archaeological  in  character,  and,  on  tiie  other  hand, 
there  may  be  material  monuments  which  are  so  closely  bound 
up  with  the  history  of  a  people  that  they  cannot  be  thought  of 
as  separate  from  that  history.  So  a  general  definition  is  rather 
apt  to  break  down  when  it  comes  to  details  and  we  have  to 
be  content  with  some  inexactness.  Such  a  state  of  affairs  is 
pretty  sure  to  arise  in  connection  with  any  subject  which 
deals  specifically  with  man's  varied  social  activities,  and 
the  material  objects  which  result  from  his  activities  will 
naturally  be  as  varied  as  the  activities  themselves.  It  is 
indeed  an  old  question  whether  we  ought  to  call  such  sub- 
jects as  archaeology  and  history  sciences  at  all,  since  they 
do  not  admit  of  the  logical  analysis  which  we  like  to  associ- 
ate with  the  term.  There  seems,  however,  no  great  gain  in 
so  limiting  the  connotation  of  the  word  "science,"  and  at 
any  rate  archaeology  and  history  may  certainly  be  studied 
scientifically. 

For  practical  purposes,  then,  we  may  accept  such  a  defi- 
nition of  archaeology  as  has  been  given  in  Hogarth's  "Au- 
thority and  Archaeology,"  namely  that  it  is  the  "science 
of  the  treatment  of  the  material  remains  of  the  human 
past."  But  even  such  a  definition  assigns  to  the  subject  an 
enormous  domain,  and  we  at  once  see  that  it  must  inevi- 
tably be  broken  up  into  innumerable  specialties.  In  the 
first  place,  there  are  the  ethnic  divisions  in  bewildering 
variety.  Among  primitive  peoples,  even  when  they  may 
dwell  in  different  parts  of  the  earth,  the  study  of  archae- 
ology may  take  on  a  not  very  dissimilar  character,  though, 
on  the  other  hand,  climate  and  race  often  introduce  great 
variety.  But  when  a  people  has  reached  a  rather  high 
state  of  civilization,  as  the  Egyptians,  for  example,  and  the 
Greeks  did,  the  situation  is  very  different.  Here  we  are 
confronted  with  all  the  complexity  which  comes  from  elab- 

6 


orate  social  organization  and  high  artistic  development, 
and  this  organization  and  development  will  assume  differ- 
ent forms  of  course,  in  accordance  with  determining  condi- 
tions of  race,  inheritance  and  history.  We  may  say  that  a 
person  who  is  studying  the  Pueblo  Indians  of  New  Mexico 
and  Arizona  and  one  who  is  studying  some  problem  in 
Athenian  life  of  the  fifth  or  fourth  century  b.c.  are  both 
working  at  archaeology,  but  it  is  obvious  that  their  activi- 
ties are  of  a  very  different  nature.  The  archaeology  of  the 
one  stands  very  close  to  anthropology,  that  of  the  other  to 
the  history  of  an  advanced  civilization  and  art.  Such  con- 
trasts in  the  nature  of  the  study  suggest  the  two-fold  di- 
rection which  it  naturally  takes,  according  as  it  is  concerned 
with  peoples  that  are  known  through  the  medium  of  litera- 
ture and  history,  or  with  such  as  have  left  behind  them  only 
the  unwritten  records  of  their  art  or  handicraft.  In  the 
latter  case,  archaeology  is  of  course  a  much  more  independ- 
ent branch  of  learning  than  in  the  former,  but  its  conclu- 
sions would  naturally  often  be  much  strengthened,  if  they 
could  be  supported  or  corrected  by  the  evidence  of  written 
documents;  in  the  former  case,  it  becomes  more  or  less  a 
branch  of  history,  in  proportion  to  the  extent  and  the  defi- 
niteness  of  the  knowledge  which  the  written  records  fur- 
nish. The  archaeology  of  primitive  peoples  naturally  deals 
with  social  conditions  that  involve  no  written  records,  but 
there  are  instances  where  we  are  forced  to  gain  our  con- 
ception of  highly  developed  civilizations  almost  entirely 
through  the  material  remains  which  survive  them.  The 
study  of  Egypt  is  an  example  of  archaeological  work  of 
this  kind,  for  its  written  records  are  of  course  chiefly  sup- 
plementary in  character. 

It  is  interesting  to  contrast  the  conception  which  is 
formed  of  the  civilization  of  ancient  Egypt  with  that 
which  may  be  had  of  ancient  Greece  where  archaeological 
study  goes  hand  in  hand  with  the  extensive  knowledge  that 

r 


comes  from  written  history  and  from  a  great  literature.  In 
spite  of  the  enormous  amount  of  archaeological  material  in 
Egypt,  the  idea  which  can  be  gained  of  the  life  of  the 
ancient  Egyptians  seems  shadowy  and  external  to  us  in 
the  absence  of  extended  written  records.  We  may  see  evi- 
dence of  dynastic  changes,  of  an  all-powerful  hierarchy,  of 
attempted  religious  reforms,  of  the  management  of  great 
agricultural  estates  in  the  Nile  valley,  and  we  may  know 
with  astonishing  minuteness  the  material  implements  and 
setting  of  everyday  life,  but  we  do  not  know  that  life  in 
any  really  sympathetic  way.  Its  thoughts,  its  ideals,  its 
strivings  are  lost  to  us  in  the  lapse  of  centuries.  With 
Greece,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  very  different.  Archae- 
ologically  it  is  certainly  not  better  known  to  us  than  Egypt, 
but  we  may  go  with  the  (Greek  into  his  political  assemblies, 
to  his  law-courts  and  his  market-place,  to  his  theatre  and  his 
athletic  games.  We  can  hear  him  talk  of  his  art  and  his 
religion  and  his  poetry.  In  other  words  we  can  know  him 
in  almost  the  way  that  we  may  know  a  contemporary  civi- 
lization. 

I  shall  have  more  to  say  about  the  part  that  archaeology 
plays  in  the  vivid  picture  we  get  of  Greece,  but  just  now  I 
merely  want  to  emphasize  the  difference  between  the  type 
of  the  study  when  it  is  concerned  with  a  people  that  has  left 
written  records,  and  with  one  that  has  not  done  so— be- 
tween the  independent  archaeology  and  that  which  is  a 
branch  of  history. 

It  is,  however,  not  solely  through  differences  in  race  and 
inheritance,  or  by  reason  of  the  different  stages  of  man's 
advancement  in  civilization,  or  because  of  the  presence  or 
absence  of  written  records,  thatrthe  nature  of  archaeological 
study  tends  to  vary  so  greatly.  When  any  one  civilization 
is  sufficiently  advanced  to  become  complex,  its  archae- 
ological records  naturally  grow  so  varied  that  the  study  of 
them  branches  out  in  very  different  directions,  and  hence 

8 


I    UNIVERSITY  1 

tends  to  become  specialized,  even  within  the  boundaries  of 
the  civilization  itself.  To  investigate  the  various  domestic 
arrangements  in  a  Mycenaean  palace  or  the  drainage  of  a 
house  in  Pompeii  is  a  work  the  quality  of  which  is  different 
from  an  investigation  that  brings  the  student  into  con- 
tact with  the  development  of  higher  forms  of  artistic 
expression.  It  is  not  only  that  an  aesthetic  element  enters 
at  this  point  into  the  study;  there  is  also  a  higher  intel- 
lectual quality  in  it.  I  would  not  seem  to  belittle  at  all  the 
humbler  material  affairs  of  life  through  which  the  great 
body  of  archaeological  knowledge  must  be  built  up.  Under 
any  truly  scientific  ideal,  all  these  things  must  be  studied 
in  minute  detail,  for  though  they  may  have  little  inherent 
importance,  they  are  of  great  value  in  rendering  our  con- 
ception of  a  past  civilization  real  and  sympathd:ic ;  but  they 
are  subordinate  facts.  When,  however,  the  student  is 
brought  into  contact  with  the  artistic  products  of  some 
gifted  people,  the  subjects  at  which  he  works  do  have  an 
importance  that  is  inherent,  and  it  is  when  archaeology 
takes  this  direction  that  it  is  of  real  educational  value.  It 
becomes  the  foundation  for  the  history  of  art,  and  passes 
imperceptibly  into  this  latter  subject.  This  is  the  kind  of 
archaeology  which  has  its  centres  of  study  chiefly  in  uni- 
versities and  museums,  though  it  of  course  ultimately  owes 
its  existence  and  much  of  its  progress  to  the  worker  in  the 
field. 

This  fact  upon  which  I  have  thus  far  laid  such  special 
emphasis,  namely  the  very  diverse  character  of  archae- 
ological study,  will,  I  hope,  make  it  plain  that  no  ordinary 
individual  could  possibly  discuss  the  details  of  the  science 
as  a  whole  with  any  real  authority.  Certainly  I  cannot  at- 
tempt to  do  so,  and  I  shall  therefore  confine  myself  from 
now  on  to  a  presentation  of  some  phases  of  Greek  archae- 
ology which,  though  they  will  of  course  relate  to  a  single 
ethnic  division  of  the  science,  may  nevertheless  be  thought 

9 


of  as  somewhat  typical  of  the  whole.  Apart,  however,  from 
the  obvious  necessity  of  discussing  the  portions  of  a  subject 
which  fall  within  the  range  of  one's  knowledge,  Greek 
archaeology  is  a  good  branch  to  choose  because  of  its  un- 
usual diversity.  There  are  few  types  of  archaeological 
study  which  may  not  find  illustration  within  its  ample 
range. 

In  the  prehistoric  period,  which  includes  the  so-called 
Mycenaean  civilization  with  its  Aegean  and,  in  Crete,  Mi- 
noan  background  reaching  well  into  neolithic  times,  we  have 
the  type  of  archaeology  which  is  not  assisted  by  written 
records.  To  be  sure,  written  characters,  hieroglyphic  and 
linear,  on  seals  and  clay  tablets,  were  known  during  a  por- 
tion of  this  time,  but  even  if  they  are  eventually  deciphered, 
they  could  not  do  more  than  throw  some  light  on  the  other 
archaeological  evidence,  as  is  the  case  with  the  written 
records  of  the  Egyptians.  Thus  the  archaeology  of  this 
early  time  in  Greek  lands  is  of  the  independent  kind,  and 
some  of  its  problems  belong  to  the  anthropologist.  After 
the  Mycenaean  civilization  passes  away,  about  the  twelfth 
century  b.c.^  there  succeeds  a  period  when  the  art  is  more 
primitive  than  that  of  the  Mycenaeans  and  is  characterized 
by  certain  marked  schemes  of  geometric  decoration.  It 
appears  to  be  a  time  of  much  migration  among  tribes  and 
of  a  considerable  mixing  up  of  the  various  elements  which 
became  more  or  less  closely  amalgamated  in  the  rise  of  the 
Greek  people.  In  this  so-called  "Geometric"  period  we  are 
still  in  the  domain  of  prehistoric  archaeology,  for  not  till  its 
close,  which  we  may  place  roughly  in  the  eighth  century 
B.C.,  do  we  begin  to  get  written  records  and  to  see  the 
dawn  of  the  literature  of  historic  Greece.  The  rise  of  the 
Greek  Epic,  to  be  sure,  goes  back  farther  than  this  time 
and  the  origin  of  its  traditions  is  probably  to  be  found  in 
the  Mycenaean  period.  I  shall  allude  to  this  question 
again ;  it  need  not  detain  us  now. 

10 


With  the  close,  then,  of  the  "Geometric"  period  we  come 
to  the  time  when  history  and  hterature  begin  to  play  an  in- 
creasingly important  role  in  the  forming  of  our  conception 
of  Greek  civilization.  Archaeology  is  no  longer  independ- 
ent, but  it  does  serve  to  make  our  idea  of  Greek  life  vastly 
clearer,  as  I  hope  to  be  able  to  show.  It  now  tends,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  high  artistic  gifts  of  the  Greeks,  to  merge 
itself  in  the  history  of  art,  a  union  which  of  course  becomes 
practically  complete  where  the  highest  manifestations  of 
Greek  art  are  concerned.  Thus  the  different  forms  of  ar- 
chaeological study  are  very  fully  illustrated  in  Greek  lands. 

Let  me  now  seek  in  a  somewhat  general  way  to  point  out 
how  our  conception  of  ancient  Greek  civilization  has  been 
made  clearer  by  archaeological  study,  and  after  that  I  will 
give  a  few  definite  examples,  chosen  from  the  whole  field, 
which  may  serve  to  make  the  general  view  somewhat 
clearer.  I  should  be  glad,  did  the  time  allow,  to  give  an 
account  of  the  interesting  and  picturesque  history  of  this 
branch  of  Greek  study,  but  I  can  merely  touch  upon  this 
point. 

The  beginning  reaches  as  far  back  as  the  journeys 
in  the  Levant  of  Cyriac  of  Ancona,  who  visited  the  Floren- 
tine Duke  of  Athens  in  the  fifteenth  century,  and  we  may 
trace  the  growth  of  the  study  through  the  establishment  in 
Greece  of  the  French  missionaries,  Jesuit  and  Capuchin, 
and  through  the  work  of  many  travellers,  chiefly  French 
and  English,  who  gradually  spread  abroad  a  knowledge  of 
the  monuments  in  western  Europe.  Toward  the  close  of 
the  seventeenth  century  came  the  melancholy  bombard- 
ment of  Athens  and  the  destruction  of  the  Parthenon  by 
the  troops  of  the  Westphalian  Graf  von  Konigsmarck,  who 
was  in  the  employ  of  the  Venetian  Republic,  then  at  war 
with  the  Turks,  for  the  latter  were  at  that  time  in  posses- 
sion of  Athens.  The  officers  brought  back  to  their  homes 
accounts  of  what  they  saw,  some  of  which  were  illustrated 

11 


by  their  sketches,  and  this  again  served  to  spread  a  knowl- 
edge of  Greece.  Curiosity  to  see  the  country  grew,  and 
in  the  eighteenth  century  there  were  more  travellers, 
among  whom  Stuart,  a  Scotchman,  and  Revett,  an  Eng- 
lishman, hold  the  first  place,  for  they  stayed  many  months 
in  Athens  and  brought  back  with  them  drawings,  which, 
though  they  were  not  published  till  many  years  afterward, 
were  the  first  actual  demonstration  to  western  Europe  of 
the  magnificence  of  the  Greek  remains.  In  this  same 
eighteenth  century,  Winckelmann  was  laying  the  founda- 
tions for  the  study  of  Greek  art  by  his  theoretic  work,  so 
that  early  in  the  last  century  the  scholars  of  Europe  had 
begun  to  long  for  original  specimens  of  Greek  sculpture 
which  might  take  the  place  in  the  study  of  art  of  the  Ro- 
man copies  in  Italian  museums.  The  interest  of  private 
collectors,  already  of  course  awakened,  then  grew  apace, 
with  the  result  that  valuable  antiques  were  gradually  gath- 
ered together,  especially  in  England,  and  these  have  now  in 
many  cases  passed  into  the  possession  of  museums.  Then 
came  the  revelation  of  the  Elgin  marbles,  which  were  not 
bought  for  the  British  Museum  till  some  time  after  they 
had  reached  England.  To  a  modern  student  it  is  amazing 
to  think  of  the  testimony  before  the  Parliamentary  com- 
mittee which  decided  on  their  purchase.  Nothing  can  show 
more  clearly  the  lack  there  was  up  to  that  time  of  any  real 
knowledge  of  Greek  originals.  As  soon  as  a  clear  concep- 
tion of  the  art  of  the  Phidian  period  was  gained  through 
these  wonderful  marbles,  they  became  a  kind  of  central 
point  from  which  archaeologists  could  build  up  an  idea  of 
the  course  of  the  sculptor's  art  in  Greece  both  backward 
and  forward.  Thus  by  the  middle  of  the  last  century 
everything  was  ready  for  the  great  excavations  which  have 
been  the  characteristic  of  the  past  fifty  years  and  which 
have  created  the  splendid  museums  of  Athens,  Olympia 
and  Delphi,  and  have  enriched  those  of  western  Eu- 

12 


rope  and  of  our  own  country,  not  only  with  many  fine 
specimens  of  sculpture,  but  also  .with  no  less  interesting 
and  important  examples  of  the  industrial  art  of  the  Greeks. 
Finally,  what  is  perhaps  historically  the  most  picturesque 
feature  in  the  growth  of  Greek  archaeology,  and  in  itself 
an  amazing  fact,  the  leading  nations  of  the  world,  France, 
Germany,  our  own  country  through  leading  universities 
and  colleges,  England  through  friends  of  Hellenic  study, 
and  Austria,  have  made  Athens  once  more  a  university 
town  by  the  establishment  there  of  national  archaeological 
schools. 

From  this  brief  historical  digression  I  will  now  return  to 
consider  first  very  generally  how  our  conception  of  Greek 
civilization  has  been  changed  by  the  growth  of  archae- 
ological study.  It  has  of  course  been  commonly  recognized 
that  in  the  work  of  the  Greeks  are  to  be  found  the  begin- 
nings of  nearly  every  branch  of  intellectual  activity  in  the 
western  world,  and  that  they  in  large  measure  marked  out 
the  categories  in  which  this  activity  has  shown  itself.  If 
we  want  an  example  from  very  near  home,  it  is  only  neces- 
sary to  call  attention  to  the  extraordinarily  Platonic  method 
of  thought  which  characterized  the  first  of  this  series  of 
lectures.  The  world  of  scholars  has  certainly  not  failed  to 
acknowledge  its  debt  to  Greece.  But  along  with  this  am- 
ple acknowledgement,  there  grew  up  among  persons  less 
well-informed,  a  popular  conception  of  the  ancient  Greeks, 
and  this  conception,  which  has  been  singularly  widespread, 
is  very  inconsistent  with  the  view  that  they  could  have 
made  any  large  contribution  to  the  spiritual  life  of  man- 
kind. Professor  Gilbert  Murray,  in  a  recently  published 
lecture,  has  described  most  concisely  this  popular  and 
perverted  view  to  be  "a  conception  of  Hellenism  as  rep- 
resenting some  easy-going  half  animal  form  of  life,  un- 
troubled by  conscience  or  ideals,  or  duties,  and  the  Greeks 
as  a  gay,  unconscious,  hedonistic  race,  possessing  the  some- 

13 


what  superficial  merits  of  extreme  good  looks  and  a 
mythically  fine  climate."  "There  is  no  reason,"  Professor 
Murray  continues,  "to  suppose  the  Greeks  miraculously 
handsome,  any  more  than  to  suppose  that  there  is  no  dirty 
weather  in  the  Aegean."  It  need  not  now  concern  us  how 
this  false  idea  arose  or  whether  Professor  Murray  is  right, 
as  he  very  likely  is,  in  believing  that  it  grew  up  through  the 
attribution  to  the  Greeks  by  ascetic  Christian  apologists  of 
qualities  which  afforded  an  antithesis  to  their  own  views 
and  which  they  erroneously  made  synonymous  with  "Pa- 
ganism." It  seems  to  be  one  of  those  perverted  notions 
which  often  appear  in  history  to  obscure  our  vision  of  the 
truth.  However  that  may  be,  this  false  view  of  the  Greeks 
has  existed,  and  one  of  the  things  which  is  putting  an  end 
to  it,  or  which  has  already  done  so,  is  the  more  vivid  con- 
ception of  ancient  Greece  that  archaeology  has  brought. 
The  setting  of  our  former  picture  has  become  much  more 
complete.  When  one  is  able  to  see  the  products  of  a  civili- 
zation in  large  mass  face  to  face,  to  become  familiar  not 
only  with  the  works  of  its  greater  minds,  but  with  those  of 
its  humble  handicraftsmen  as  well,  one  may  enter  so  fully 
and  with  such  sympathy  into  the  life  of  the  people  as  to  be 
pretty  effectually  protected  against  false  and  one-sided 
judgments  about  them.  To  take  but  a  single  example: 
Within  recent  years  a  large  number  of  sepulchral  monu- 
ments have  been  uncovered  which  have  been  well  published 
in  an  extensive  corpus.  It  would  indeed  be  a  person  of 
dull  imagination  who  could  go  through  the  halls  of  the 
museum  at  Athens,  where  there  is  an  extensive  series  of 
these  monuments,  or  who  could  study  the  reproductions  of 
the  corpus,  without  having  a  lively  sense  of  that  kinship 
which  we  all  feel  in  the  presence  of  human  sorrow. 

There  has  been,  too,  another  mistaken  view  of  the  Greeks, 
not  this  time  ethical  in  purport,  which  has  tended  to  make 
them  seem  exceptional  in  their  development,  and  thus  to 

14 


stand  rather  apart  from  other  men.  This  is  the  idea  of  a 
very  sudden  efflorescence  of  their  art  in  all  its  perfection,  not 
at  all  after  the  manner  of  most  hmnan  things.  Archaeol- 
ogy, however,  has  shown  that  the  growth  of  artistic  skill, 
though  no  doubt  rapid,  was  not  abnormally  so,  and  the 
view  which  reason  should  formerly  have  shown  to  be  the 
true  one  is  now  not  open  to  question. 

It  would  be  possible,  of  course,  to  pursue  this  line  of 
thought  much  further,  but  it  will  better  meet  the  present 
need,  I  think,  if  I  turn  to  the  consideration  of  a  few  of 
the  niore  important  examples  of  recent  development  in 
Greek  archaeology,  and  try  to  show  briefly  what  their 
scientific  significance  is.  Such  a  presentation  may,  I  hope, 
serve  to  illustrate,  at  least  by  implication,  some  of  the  gen- 
eral views  that  have  been  expressed,  and  may  suggest  more 
concretely  the  typical  quality  of  Greek  archaeological 
work. 

The  beginning  is  of  course  naturally  to  be  made  with  the 
prehistoric  time.  The  study  here  has  taken  on  a  scientific 
character  comparatively  recently,  since  until  Schliemann's 
excavations  the  requisite  material  for  study  was  not  at 
hand.  I  will  not  dwell  upon  the  picturesque  and  interest- 
ing incidents  in  this  remarkable  man's  career,  which  led 
him  to  begin  his  famous  work  at  Hissarlik  with  the  idea  of 
finding  the  Homeric  Troy.  It  is  easy  to  smile  now  at  the 
unscientific  character  of  some  of  his  ideas,  but  there  is  noth- 
ing to  excite  anything  except  admiration  when  one  marks 
the  progress  in  the  quality  of  his  work,  and  sees  his  abound- 
ing enthusiasm  and  energy  and  the  large-minded  way  in 
which  he  sought  the  best  advice  and  help  he  could  get.  He 
certainly  found  Troy— or  a  place  corresponding  to  it— 
though  his  first  interpretation  of  the  excavations  was  mis- 
taken, and  he  opened  the  wonderful  graves  at  Mycenae 
which  amazed  the  world  with  their  wealth  of  gold.  Later 
in  his  work  he  had  the  wisdom  and  good  fortune  to  avail 

15 


himself  of  the  cooperation  of  Professor  Wilhelm  Dorpf eld, 
who  with  consummate  skill  has  continued  and  perfected  the 
work  which  Schliemann  began.  Tiryns  too  was  soon  un- 
covered, with  results  that  were  architecturally  of  especial 
importance,  and  the  excavations  at  Hissarlik,  which  had 
really  never  been  dropped,  were  continued  further.  There 
was  a  difficulty  in  the  fact  that  the  objects  found  at  My- 
cenae did  not  correspond  with  those  found  in  the  second 
stratum  of  the  Hissarlik  excavations,  which  Schliemann 
had  believed  to  be  the  Homeric  Troy.  The  trouble  was 
soon  cleared  up,  though  Schliemann  did  not  live  to  know 
the  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter.  The  so-called  sixth 
city  at  Hissarlik,  a  larger  and  more  important  settlement, 
turned  out  to  be  the  one  which  corresponded  with  the  exca- 
vations at  Mycenae  and  Tiryns.  Schliemann's  work  has 
been  continued  by  Dorpfeld  and  by  the  Greek  Archae- 
ological Society,  chiefly  under  the  direction  of  Tsountas, 
and  thus  gradually  a  large  amount  of  material  to  illustrate 
what  has  come  to  be  called  the  Mycenaean  civilization  has 
been  gathered  together.  Many  lesser  sites  were  explored, 
and  it  became  evident  that  this  civilization  extended  very 
generally  over  the  mainland  of  Greece.  Such,  in  brief, 
has  been  the  first  stage  in  the  investigation  of  prehistoric 
Greece. 

The  second  stage  will  always  be  associated  with  the 
island  of  Crete  and  with  the  name  of  Dr.  Arthur  Evans, 
though  many  others  have  had  a  hand  in  the  work,  notably 
an  able  company  of  Italian  archaeologists,  the  British 
School  at  Athens,  the  English  archaeologist,  Mr.  D.  G. 
Hogarth,  our  own  country-woman,  Miss  Boyd,  now  Mrs. 
Hawes,  and  some  others. 

Until  recently  the  island  of  Crete,  which  appears  to  have 
been  the  chief  centre  of  the  Mycenaean  civilization,  was 
politically  in  too  unsettled  a  condition  for  very  extended 
archaeological  work.    This,  however,  did  not  prevent  Dr. 

16 


Evans  from  studying  it,  and  largely  through  his  great 
knowledge  of  the  small  objects,  especially  the  gems,  which 
illustrate  the  early  art  of  the  Aegean,  and  which  have  been 
found  in  many  places,  he  was  led  to  form  conclusions  in 
regard  to  the  probable  results  of  excavation  in  Crete, 
which,  now  that  they  have  been  abundantly  confirmed,  are 
seen  to  constitute  an  extraordinary  example  of  archae- 
ological penetration.  Dr.  Evans'  excavations  at  Cnosus, 
near  Candia,  are  the  most  extensive  that  have  thus  far 
been  prosecuted  in  Crete,  but  those  of  the  Italians  are 
extremely  important  also,  and  they  have  yielded  some 
of  the  most  interesting  specimens  of  Mycenaean  objects. 
The  excavations  at  Cnosus,  however,  have  revealed  a  very 
long  chronological  sequence,  which  appears  to  begin  as 
early  as  the  earlier  Egyptian  dynasties,  toward  the  begin- 
ning, that  is,  of  the  fourth  millennium  B.C.,  unless  indeed  a 
still  earlier  dynastic  dating  be  accepted.  The  changes  in 
Cretan  art  can  be  traced  from  this  point  down  to  the  close 
of  the  Mycenaean  time,  that  is,  till  about  the  end  of  the  sec- 
ond millennium  B.C.  To  the  Greek  archaeologist  it  is  the 
objects  which  belong  to  this  second  millennium  that  have 
the  most  immediate  interest,  because  of  their  relation  to 
Mycenaean  art,  but  those  which  are  to  be  dated  earlier  are 
of  the  highest  importance  to  a  knowledge  of  that  which  lies 
back  of  the  Mycenaean  period.  It  has  already  been  said 
that  Schliemann  found  settlements  at  Hissarlik  beneath 
the  one  which  proved  to  be  the  Troy  of  Mycenaean  times, 
and  evidence  of  this  primitive  culture  has  for  years  past 
been  turning  up  in  the  islands  of  the  Aegean.  Just  now 
similar  phaenomena  are  appearing  on  the  Greek  mainland, 
notably  under  the  ruins  of  Mycenaean  Tiryns,  so  that  a 
primitive  archaeology  of  the  Aegean  region  is  slowly  de- 
veloping.   But  this  is  a  matter  which  I  must  pass  by. 

The  view  which  archaeologists  are  at  present  inclined  to 
take  with  reference  to  the  Mycenaean  civilization  is  that 

17 


one  of  its  greatest  centres,  probably  its  greatest  centre,  was 
in  Crete,  and  that  a  period  in  its  course  of  great  influence 
and  power  is  to  be  associated  with  the  King  Minos  who  be- 
comes an  important  figure  in  later  Greek  legend.  Whether 
the  civilization  spread  directly  from  Crete  to  outlying 
regions  is  still  a  matter  for  discussion.  It  was  important  in 
Sicily,  and  its  influence  reached  to  far-off  Spain,  which  in 
its  bull-fights  appears  still  to  hark  back  to  a  favorite 
Mycenaean  sport.  Some  students  of  the  prehistoric  archae- 
ology of  northern  Europe  believe  indeed  that  this  My- 
cenaean influence  may  be  traced  far  northward  into  the 
continent.  The  regions,  however,  that  were  close  at  hand 
must  have  felt  this  influence  most  strongly.  Thus  to  un- 
derstand the  ethnic  and  artistic  relations  in  which  this  early 
civilization  stands  to  the  Greece  of  later  times  is  all-import- 
ant to  the  Greek  archaeologist. 

The  art  of  the  Mycenaean  civilization  was  in  some  direc- 
tions of  a  very  fully  developed  type.  In  architecture  we 
find  exceedingly  elaborate  structures,  especially  in  Crete, 
where  the  palaces  of  the  chieftains  were  unfortified,  pre- 
sumably because  their  owners  controlled  the  seas.  On  the 
mainland,  the  palace  at  Tiryns  shows  most  distinctly  the 
type  of  the  fortified  residence,  and  here  we  approach  a 
good  deal  more  closely  to  the  plan  of  a  chieftain's  house  as 
it  appears  in  the  Odyssey.  It  is  clear  enough  that  these 
residences  were  often  splendidly  adorned  and  were  ar- 
ranged for  a  life  of  considerable  comfort.  Wall  paintings 
of  high  decorative  merit  have  been  found,  excellent  relief- 
work  in  plaster  and  fine  carving  in  stone,  but  it  is  above 
all  the  objects  of  minor  art  which  excite  our  admiration. 
Some  of  the  work  in  gold,  silver  and  bronze  has  perhaps 
never  been  surpassed,  and  great  skill,  too,  is  shown  in  the 
relief  work  on  some  of  the  stone  vases,  and  in  the  carving 
of  ivory  and  gems.  In  pottery,  too,  there  is  very  high  de- 
velopment, and  great  variety,  with  extremely  clever  use  of 

18 


plant  forms  and  of  some  marine  animals  in  the  decorative 
schemes.  A  linear  script  which  takes  the  place  of  an  earlier 
hieroglyphic  writing  was  known,  but  it  has  not  yet  been 
deciphered.  In  general  it  may  be  said  that  the  Mycenaean 
art  shows  some  oriental  and  especially  Egyptian  influence, 
but  in  the  main  its  character  is  singularly  independent, 
and  it  is  often  startlingly  modern,  much  more  so  than  the 
Greek  art  of  the  classic  period.  When  the  human  face  is 
represented,  it  is  neither  Egyptian  nor  Semitic  in  type, 
and  the  individuality  of  the  faces  is  strongly  marked.  To 
me  it  seems  that  great  emphasis  should  be  laid  on  this 
tendency  to  mark  the  individual.  The  importance  of  the 
individual  man  is  one  of  the  leading  social  facts  of  Greek 
civilization,  and  one  of  the  features  which  distinguishes  it 
from  the  characteristic  civilizations  of  the  East.  Thus 
when  the  differences  between  the  art  of  Greece  and  that 
of  the  Mycenaeans  are  emphasized,  it  is  well  to  keep  this 
fundamental  resemblance  in  mind. 

But  what  is  the  origin  and  what  are  the  ethnic  relations 
of  this  gifted  people  which  has  so  recently  been  made 
known  to  us?  This  is  a  question  now  being  eagerly  asked, 
but  as  yet  it  has  not  been  answered.  If  the  writing  on  seals 
and  clay  tablets  shall  be  deciphered,  we  are  likely  to  know 
a  good  deal  more  than  we  do  now.  At  present  the  whole 
matter  is  involved  in  the  conflicting  traditions  regarding 
the  various  tribes  and  peoples  which  had  their  homes  in 
Greece  before  the  inhabitants  came  to  be  known  as  Hel- 
lenes, for,  if  anything  is  certain,  it  is  that  the  Greeks  of 
historic  times  were  a  mixture  of  various  different  peoples. 
The  problem  becomes  closely  linked  with  the  intricate  ques- 
tion of  the  origin  of  the  Homeric  poems,  since  in  them  we 
have  a  picture  of  the  heroic,  or  Achaean  civilization  which 
furnishes  the  background  for  so  much  of  Greek  legendary 
history.  More  specifically,  the  question  presents  itself  to 
us  in  this  form :  Is  the  Mycenaean  art  and  civilization  suf - 

19 


ficiently  like  the  art  and  civilization  depicted  in  the  Ho- 
meric poems  to  warrant  us  in  practically  identifying  the 
two  civilizations?  It  is  not  surprising  that  archaeologists 
should  often  disagree  in  such  a  matter,  and  of  course  the 
extraordinarily  difficult  critical  problem  of  the  unity  of  the 
Homeric  picture  is  also  involved.  Is  it  a  single  picture 
that  the  poems  give  us,  or  is  it  a  picture  of  earlier  times 
complicated  by  the  contemporary  influence  of  the  poet's 
surroundings  or  by  the  play  of  his  own  fancy?  Clearly 
there  is  plenty  of  chance  for  a  difference  of  opinion,  and 
two  marked  tendencies  are  observable.  The  one  would  em- 
phasize the  differences  between  Homeric  art  and  that  of 
the  Mycenaean  civilization,  the  other  the  resemblances  be- 
tween the  two.  As  matters  stand  to-day,  the  view  that 
the  Homeric  poems  reflect  in  the  main  the  civilization  of 
the  Mycenaean  period  is  the  prevailing  one.  The  differ- 
ences, it  is  thought,  may  generally  be  explained  by  the  fact 
that  the  poems  originated  at  a  later  time,  and  that  the 
picture  they  give  has  been  somewhat  modified  by  changing 
customs.  Thus  the  society  of  the  poems  has  a  somewhat 
more  democratic  stamp  than  we  should  naturally  associate 
with  the  Mycenaean  civilization,  and  the  connection  be- 
tween the  Homeric  conception  of  the  gods  and  the  religious 
ideas  of  the  Mycenaean  civilization,  so  far  as  we  can  form 
an  idea  of  them,  is  not  yet  clear.  Apparently  the  muse  who 
inspires  the  poet  is  a  very  complicated  personality.  Em- 
phasize as  we  will  the  unity  of  the  poems  in  their  present 
form,  there  is  still  very  strong  evidence  that  they  are  not 
chronologically  homogeneous  in  all  their  parts,  and  this 
fact  must  of  course  warn  us  to  expect  a  lack  of  unity  in  the 
picture  they  afford. 

When  it  is  sought  to  associate  the  Mycenaean  remains 
with  one  or  other  of  the  various  peoples  or  tribes  which  ap- 
pear in  the  Homeric  poems  and  in  other  Greek  tradition, 
we  are  face  to  face  with  a  somewhat  different  phase  of  the 

20 


problem.  For  Homer,  the  Achaeans  are  the  leading  race, 
but  we  have  in  Greek  tradition  conflicting  accounts  of 
Pelasgians  who  were  very  likely  earlier.  Homer  knows, 
too,  of  other  races,  and  in  Crete  he  enumerates  many  tribes. 
But  so  long  as  we  lack  the  knowledge  to  form  any  clear 
conception  of  the  qualities  of  these  different  races,  there 
is  no  great  scientific  gain  in  identifying  one  or  the  other 
with  the  Mycenaeans.  It  is  always  possible,  moreover,  and 
very  likely,  that  this  wonderful  art  grew  up  in  the  gradual 
union  of  tribes  of  different  stock.  So,  to  solve  the  problem, 
we  must  wait  for  more  light. 

The  relation  of  Mycenaean  art  to  that  of  later  Greece 
may,  however,  be  traced  in  a  more  distinctly  archaeological 
way,  a  way  that  does  not  involve  the  uncertainties  of  vague 
literary  traditions.  Here  the  question  is:  How  far  can 
the  influence  of  Mycenaean  design  be  traced  in  later  art? 
I  have  already  said  that,  when  this  great  civilization  passed 
away,  at  the  end  of  the  second  millennium  B.C.,  it  was 
succeeded  by  a  period  in  which  artistic  design  was  based 
chiefly  on  geometric  forms.  The  art  of  this  period  is  far 
less  advanced,  and  we  have  what  has  been  called  the  time 
of  the  Greek  "Dark  Ages."  Some  movement  of  peoples, 
very  likely  the  so-called  Dorian  invasion,  put  an  end  to  \he 
power  of  the  Mycenaean  chieftains,  and  to  the  art  that 
their  civilization  produced ;  then  there  was  gradually  devel- 
oped an  art,  ruder  in  character,  which  had  its  basis  in  the 
geometric  designs  that  are  common  enough  among  all 
primitive  peoples.  In  other  words  the  geometric  art  is  the 
outgrowth  of  a  peasant  style,  a  Bauernstil,  as  the  Germans 
call  it.  In  this  may  be  traced  some  remains  of  Mycenaean 
influence,  enough,  probably,  to  show  that  the  traditions  of 
that  civilization  were  not  quite  lost,  though  investigations 
in  the  matter  are  by  no  means  complete.  Another  and 
probably  stronger  support  for  this  connection  between 
Mycenaean  art  and  that  of  later  Greece  lies  in  the  early 

21 


art  of  Ionia,  where  it  would  seem  that  Mycenaean  elements 
have  been  somewhat  more  directly  preserved.  As  yet,  how- 
ever, we  know  comparatively  little  of  the  early  Ionic  re- 
mains, and  their  further  discovery  and  investigation  is  one 
of  the  most  important  problems  in  Greek  archaeology.  To 
the  work,  then,  of  the  Greeks  of  Asia  Minor  we  must  look 
for  light  on  this  point,  and  indeed  this  region  of  the  Greek 
world  has  in  many  ways  become  the  land  of  promise  for 
the  archaeologist.  To  take  but  a  single  instance:  in  the 
Greek  art  of  the  seventh  and  sixth  centuries  B.C.  there  are 
many  oriental  elements.  Where  do  they  come  from?  Very 
likely  through  Lydia  and  Cappadocia,  but  the  early  art  of 
these  countries  is  still  very  imperfectly  known. 

This  very  scant  outline  of  some  of  the  problems  which 
are  now  before  students  of  prehistoric  Greece,  must,  I  fear, 
suffice  for  the  present  purpose,  and  I  will  next  pass  on  to 
consider  the  results  of  a  typical  excavation  of  the  historic 
period.  The  work  of  the  Greeks  on  the  Acropolis  at 
Athens  during  the  decade  between  1880  and  1890  seems 
a  good  example  to  choose,  because  of  its  bearing  not  only 
upon  the  history  of  sculpture,  but  also  upon  that  of  archi- 
tecture and  upon  some  of  the  minor  forms  of  Greek  art. 

As  has  already  been  remarked,  through  the  bringing  of 
the  Elgin  marbles  to  London  a  definite  conception  of  the 
Phidian  art— that  is,  of  the  art  of  Greek  sculpture  in  At- 
tica about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  B.C. — was  gained. 
Of  the  earlier  development  of  Athenian  art  there  was  prac- 
tically no  knowledge,  though  some  other  parts  of  Greece, 
notably  Aegina,  certain  regions  of  Ionia,  and  Olympia, 
had  yielded  sculpture  which  was  clearly  earlier  in  date  than 
the  marbles  of  the  Parthenon.  Did  not  Attic  art  also  pass 
through  an  archaic  stage?  There  were,  to  be  sure,  a  few 
isolated  specimens  of  the  early  art  of  Attica,  like  the  figure 
popularly  known  as  the  "Marathonian  Soldier,"  but  these 
could  not  be  dated  with  any  certainty,  and  they  seemed  to 

22 


stand  unrelated  to  the  subsequent  period.  In  architecture 
the  Parthenon,  Propylaea,  and  Erechtheum  of  course  af- 
forded a  good  idea  of  fifth  century  work,  but  we  knew 
nothing  of  the  stages  through  which  the  art  had  passed 
before  reaching  the  perfection  of  form  which  these  ruins 
show.  In  ceramics,  archaeologists  were  even  more  at  sea, 
and  archaic  looking  vases  which  showed  red  figures  on  a 
dark  ground,  the  scheme  of  color  that  follows  the  system 
known  as  black-figured,  were  dated  well  on  in  the  fifth  cen- 
tury B.C.J  in  spite  of  their  archaic  character.  This  may  seem 
a  slight  matter,  but  to  the  archaeologist  a  correct  chro- 
nology of  vases  is  all-important,  since  in  excavation,  the 
potsherds  are  often,  are  indeed  commonly,  the  indication 
of  date.  Such,  then,  in  general,  was  the  state  of  our  knowl- 
edge—or ignorance— about  Attic  art,  when  the  excavations 
on  the  Acropolis  began.  From  the  Greek  historians,  how- 
ever, this  fact  was  known,  namely,  that  when  Xerxes  in- 
vaded Greece  in  480  B.C.  the  Persians,  just  before  the  battle 
of  Salamis,  captured  Athens  and  destroyed  the  monuments 
on  the  Acropolis.  Presumably,  therefore,  the  excavators 
would  find  at  least  some  record  of  the  art  which  preceded 
the  Phidian  epoch,  and  it  would  be  fair  to  assume  that 
objects  found  in  the  rubbish  used  to  level  the  surface  of  the 
hill  for  the  builders  of  the  fifth  century  would  be  correctly 
dated  at  least  before  480  B.C.  The  results  of  the  excava- 
tions exceeded  the  fondest  hopes  of  the  archaeologists.  A 
large  series  of  sculptures  was  found  illustrating  the  art  of 
the  Athenians  from  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century  B.C., 
and  possibly  from  a  slightly  earlier  date.  Some  of  these 
formed  pedimental  groups  and  thus  showed  the  existence 
of  several  temples  much  earlier  than  those  that  were 
known.  Many  architectural  fragments  were  found  which 
have  gradually  disclosed  their  meaning,  and  even  to-day 
students  are  at  work  on  the  remains  and  are  constantly 
making  additions  to  our  knowledge.    It  would  be  difficult 

28 


to  exaggerate  the  importance  of  these  excavations  to  an 
understanding  of  Greek  art.  The  historical  relation  of 
many  monuments  was  at  once  made  clear,  and  a  definite 
impression  of  the  Athenian  art  of  the  sixth  century  B.C. 
was  created,  analogous  to  that  which  the  Elgin  marbles  had 
created  for  the  fifth.  Many  inscriptions  and  some  import- 
ant objects  in  bronze  were  discovered,  and  the  finding  of 
red-figured  vases  in  the  pre-Persian  rubbish  established  the 
fact  that  much  too  late  a  date  had  been  given  for  the  begin- 
ning of  the  style.  Some  of  the  discoveries  had  also  an  im- 
portant mythological  bearing,  for  many  of  the  objects 
found  are  related  to  Athenian  legend  and  cult.  Not  only 
is  it  now  possible  to  know  much  of  several  temples  on  the 
Acropolis  which  existed  a  century  and  more  before  the 
Parthenon,  but  it  has  also  been  revealed  that  the  height 
was  once  a  stronghold  in  Mycenaean  times,  and  had,  like 
Tiryns,  its  chieftain's  palace,  to  which  a  passage  in  the 
Odyssey  appears  to  make  reference.  It  is  impossible  to 
indicate  in  a  few  words  the  far-reaching  scientific  and  ar- 
tistic importance  of  such  excavations  as  these ;  they  throw 
light  in  so  many  ways,  not  only  upon  questions  immedi- 
ately before  the  excavators,  but  also  upon  the  problems 
of  excavations  in  other  regions.  The  discoveries,  for  ex- 
ample, on  the  Acropolis  of  early  sculptures  have  an 
important  bearing  upon  similar  finds  in  the  more  recent 
excavations  at  Delphi. 

The  next  example  of  recent  archaeological  progress  I 
will  take  from  ceramics,  one  of  the  most  important  of  the 
various  branches  of  Greek  industrial  art.  I  shall  confine 
my  remarks  to  the  vases  alone,  though  of  course  the  subject 
includes  all  work  in  moulded  clay,  and  consequently  the 
beautiful  and  interesting  figurines  about  which  there  has 
been  so  much  talk  in  recent  years. 

The  scientific  study  of  vases  is  comparatively  new,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  the  older  museums  of  Europe  have 

24 


for  a  long  time  possessed  large  collections.  The  subject  is 
a  difficult  one,  since  it  includes  products  which  differ 
greatly  in  style,  and  the  reciprocal  influence  of  the  various 
styles  is  still  in  many  cases  imperfectly  understood.  Until 
rather  recently  the  best  known  classes  of  these  vases,  both 
black  and  red-figured,  were  indiscriminately  called  Etrus- 
can, and  even  to-day  one  sometimes  hears  this  term  popu- 
larly applied  to  them.  We  now  know,  however,  that  com- 
paratively few  of  them  are  really  Etruscan,  and  these  of 
inferior  quality;  although  found  in  Italy,  they  are  for  the 
most  part  Greek  and  to  a  large  extent  Athenian.  It  is 
the  excavations  of  recent  years,  like  those  on  the  Athenian 
Acropolis,  which  have  made  a  scientific  study  of  this  branch 
of  Greek  archaeology  possible.  So  long  as  the  vases  were 
known  merely  in  museums,  and  the  records  of  their  discov- 
ery were  either  wanting  entirely  or  were  very  defective,  no 
progress  could  be  made.  Now  archaeologists  are  able  to 
work  in  the  light,  since  many  vases  found  actually  on 
Greek  soil,  and  in  many  different  localities,  have  made  the 
scientific  classification  of  museum  specimens  possible. 

Apart  from  the  importance  of  vases  in  furnishing  chro- 
nological clews  to  the  excavator,  and  apart  from  the  actual 
beauty  of  the  best  specimens,  they  are  of  unconmion  inter- 
est as  throwing  light,  not  only  upon  the  major  art  of 
painting  among  the  Greeks,  of  which  we  know  little,  but 
also  upon  mythology.  This  comes  from  the  fact  that  it 
was  the  habit  of  the  vase  decorators  to  choose  the  subjects 
that  they  represented  from  the  rich  store  of  Greek  legend. 
The  greater  painters  chose  their  subjects  from  the  same 
source,  and  so  it  is  to  the  vases  that  we  must  chiefly  look  in 
trying  to  form  some  conception  of  the  work  of  these  paint- 
ers, which  we  know  of  otherwise  only  through  literary 
tradition.  Certain  Attic  vases,  for  example,  dating  from 
about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century  B.C.,  apparently 
throw  much  light  upon  the  school  of  the  great  artist 

25 


Polygnotus.  The  relation  of  vase  paintings  to  the  Greek 
epic,  the  storehouse  of  legend,  is  analogous.  Countless 
scenes  taken  from  the  popular  mythology  are  represented 
on  the  vases.  Sometimes  they  are  quite  in  accord  with 
literary  tradition,  again  they  reveal  interesting  variants 
from  this  tradition,  and  not  infrequently  a  vase  may 
show  some  form  of  a  legend  not  otherwise  known.  The 
vase  painter,  however,  did  not  work  solely  in  the  atmo- 
sphere of  mythological  tradition;  he  often  chose  subjects 
from  everyday  life.  The  school-room,  the  palaestra,  the 
symposium,  the  boat-race,  the  ceremonies  of  marriage  and 
death,  and  other  everyday  events  furnish  him  material; 
there  is  in  Boston  an  interesting  amphora  upon  which  a 
scene  representing  a  woman  being  measured  for  a  pair  of 
shoes  is  painted.  Taken  all  in  all,  there  is  perhaps  no  de- 
partment of  Greek  archaeology  which  illustrates  more 
plainly  than  vase  painting  does  the  light  such  study  may 
throw  upon  a  past  civilization.  The  fact  that  it  was  a  com- 
paratively humble  occupation,  carried  on  by  handicrafts- 
men, only  makes  it  seem  to  draw  us  the  nearer  to  the 
popular  tradition  and  life. 

I  pass  on  now  to  the  subject  of  inscriptions,  a  far-reach- 
ing topic,  for  the  Greeks,  and  especially  the  Athenians, 
followed  the  practice  of  engraving  records  on  stone  to  an 
extent  that  seems  almost  inconceivable.  Treaties,  law- 
codes,  public  decrees  of  all  sorts,  provisions  for  religious 
observance,  temple  records,  records  of  Aesculapian  cures, 
reports  of  commissions  and  of  the  expenditure  of  money, 
architectural  specifications,  dedications  of  offerings,  rec- 
ords of  literary  and  gymnastic  contests,  epitaphs— in  short, 
almost  every  direction  that  human  activity  takes  seems  to 
find  expression  in  inscriptions.  This,  of  course,  means 
that  they  should  be  considered  as  a  department  of  archae- 
ology only  so  far  as  their  content  bears  upon  matters  which 
fall  within  the  limits  of  this  subject.     I  will  choose,  to 

26 


illustrate  the  archaeological  character  of  some  inscriptions, 
two  examples  which  show  the  service  they  may  render  the 
student  of  Greek  architecture.  The  first  has  to  do  with 
the  temple  on  the  Acropolis  known  as  the  Erechtheum,  and 
under  the  following  circumstances:  In  the  year  409  B.C., 
this  little  temple,  which  has  played  so  important  a  role  in 
the  architectural  history  of  the  western  world,  was  appar- 
ently in  an  unfinished  condition.  Probably  the  long  Pe- 
loponnesian  war  had  put  a  stop  to  the  work  upon  it.  How- 
ever that  may  be,  the  Athenian  government  decided  to  ap- 
point a  commission,  which  was  required  to  make  an  exact 
report  with  reference  to  the  condition  of  the  building.  This 
was  done  apparently  very  carefully,  for  we  have  the  com- 
mission's report  engraved  on  stone.  It  begins  with  these 
words,  "We  found  the  following  parts  unfinished,"  and 
then  these  parts  are  specified  in  a  long  list,  and  measure- 
ments are  given.  A  year  later  the  work  had  been  done,  and 
it  was  necessary  to  have  an  account  of  expenses,  so  another 
long  inscription  was  prepared  giving  in  detail  the  siuns  of 
money  which  had  been  paid  out  to  the  workmen  for  specific 
pieces  of  work.  In  both  inscriptions  there  is  of  coiu'se  in- 
cidental mention  of  many  different  portions  of  the  temple. 
Now,  about  four  years  ago,  the  Greek  authorities  deter- 
mined to  carry  out  some  repairs  upon  the  ruins  of  the  Erech- 
theum, so  that  at  least  their  further  decay  might  be  arrested, 
and  this  work  led  to  a  very  careful  study  of  the  scattered 
architectural  fragments  which  could  be  assigned  to  the 
building.  The  time  seemed  propitious  for  a  new  publica- 
tion of  the  temple,  since  all  the  existing  studies  of  it  are 
very  inadequate,  and  the  officers  of  our  own  School  at 
Athens  decided  to  undertake  the  work.  Elaborate  and  very 
beautiful  drawings  have  already  been  made  by  Mr.  Gor- 
ham  Stevens,  of  the  office  of  McKim,  Mead  and  White, 
while  he  was  Fellow  in  Architecture  at  the  School,  and  the 
careful  archaeological  study  of  the  ruins  is  now  going  f or- 

27 


ward.  One  of  the  important  features  of  this  study  is  the  ex- 
act editing  of  these  inscriptions  which,  in  spite  of  the  muti- 
lated condition  of  some  portions  of  them,  have  a  great  deal 
to  tell  of  parts  of  the  building  now  in  ruins.  Thus,  in  get- 
ting at  the  significance  of  the  scattered  architectural  mem- 
bers, they  are  often  of  the  highest  importance,  and  never 
until  now  has  it  been  possible  to  study  them  carefully  in 
the  light  of  a  complete  knowledge  of  the  remains  of  the 
temple. 

The  second  example  of  an  important  archaeological  in- 
scription is  one  from  the  year  342  B.C. ;  it  concerns  a  naval 
arsenal  that  was  to  be  built  at  the  Piraeus.  The  inscrip- 
tion, which  has  hardly  an  illegible  word  in  it,  is  headed, 
"Report  (which  here  means  specifications)  of  the  stone 
storehouse  for  ship's  tackle."  There  were  apparently  two 
commissioners,  Euthydomus  and  Philo,  of  whom  the  latter 
was  a  well-known  architect,  and  the  storehouse  now  goes 
by  the  name  of  the  "Arsenal  of  Philo."  No  vestige  of  this 
building  remains,  but  so  careful  are  the  specifications, 
which  include  measurements,  that  it  has  been  possible  to 
make  complete  drawings  of  the  building.  Only  a  very  few 
minor  matters  of  detail  are  open  to  dispute.  It  would  be 
possible  to  give  many  other  examples  of  the  important 
archaeological  bearing  of  inscriptions,  but  these  instances 
are  perhaps  sufficient ;  they  are,  at  any  rate,  characteristic. 

In  citing  the  foregoing  typical  examples  of  work  in 
Greek  archaeology  I  trust  I  shall  not  be  thought  to  have 
attempted  even  an  outline  sketch  of  the  general  subject. 
Had  this  been  my  purpose,  I  must  have  made  mention  of 
several  other  important  branches  of  the  study.  Bronze 
work,  for  example,  and  work  in  gold  and  silver,  shows  the 
characteristics  of  other  forms  and  periods  of  Greek  art, 
and  it  is  of  the  highest  value,  both  for  its  intrinsic  merit 
and  because  it  affords  the  student  much  suggestive  ma- 
terial for  comparison  with  other  things.    The  same  is  true 

28 


also  of  the  art  of  gem  cutting  (glyptics)  which  extends 
from  Mycenaean  times  down.  And  above  all  there  is  the 
great  subject  of  coins  (numismatics)  which  is  really  a 
specialty  by  itself.  To  the  Greek  archaeologist  its  import- 
ance can  hardly  be  exaggerated ;  coins  furnish  the  student 
of  history  important  data  with  reference  to  the  commercial 
and  political  relations  between  different  communities ;  they 
frequently  throw  light  on  political  changes;  the  student  of 
religion  and  art  finds  in  them  many  types  in  the  represen- 
tation of  deities ;  they  often  afford  information  about  por- 
traiture, and  the  Greek  coins  of  the  Roman  period  not 
infrequently  bear  representations  of  famous  statues,  and 
other  celebrated  monuments  of  bygone  times.  Further- 
more, the  extraordinary  beauty  of  the  best  specimens  of 
Greek  coinage  raises  them  to  a  high  artistic  level  which 
makes  most  modern  attempts  in  this  direction  seem  poor 
indeed. 

Inadequate  as  this  hasty  survey  of  a  great  subject  must 
be,  I  hope  at  least  it  may  have  suggested  the  high  import- 
ance of  archaeology  in  the  study  of  the  growth  of  human 
civilization.  As  the  material  from  various  regions  and 
countries  accumulates,  it  will  of  course  throw  much  light 
upon  the  mutual  relations  of  different  peoples.  Almost 
every  year  of  late  has  brought  some  new  suggestion  of  this 
kind,  and  Asia  Minor,  one  of  the  great  meeting-places  of 
East  and  West,  has  been  comparatively  little  explored.  In 
many  prehistoric  fields,  where  the  anthropologist  and 
archaeologist  work  hand  in  hand,  new  views  of  the  earlier 
conditions  and  relations  of  human  life  on  the  earth  contin- 
ually appear.  Archaeology  is  still  in  its  infancy,  but  the 
time  seems  surely  coming  when  the  comparative  study  of 
former  races  and  civilizations  may  be  based,  far  more  than 
is  possible  to-day,  on  a  sound  knowledge  of  their  handi- 
craft and  art. 


OF 

*^id[FORNU^ 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


A  SERIES  of  twenty-two  lectures  descriptive  in  untechnical  language  of 
the  achievements  in  Science,  Philosophy  and  Art,  and  indicating  the 
present  status  of  these  subjects  as  concepts  of  human  knowledge,  are  being 
delivered  at  Columbia  University,  during  the  academic  year  1907-1908,  by 
various  professors  chosen  to  represent  the  several  departments  of  instruction. 

MATHEMATICS,  by  Cassius  Jackson  Keyser,  Adrain  Professor  of  Mathe- 
matics. 

PHYSICS,  by  Ernest  Fox  Nichols,  Professor  of  Experimental  Physics. 

CHEMISTRY,  by  Charles  F.  Chandler,  Professor  of  Chemistry. 

ASTRONOMY,  by  Harold  Jacoby,  Rutherfurd  Professor  of  Astronomy. 

GEOLOGY,  by  James  Furman  Kemp,  Professor  of  Geology. 

BIOLOGY,  by  Edmund  B.  Wilson,  Professor  of  Zoology. 

PHYSIOLOGY,  by  Frederic  S.  Lee,  Professor  of  Physiology. 

BOTANY,  by  Herbert  Maule  Richards,  Professor  of  Botany. 

ZOOLOGY,  by  Henry  E.  Crampton,  Professor  of  Zoology. 

ANTHROPOLOGY,  by  Franz  Boas,  Professor  of  Anthropology. 

ARCHAEOLOGY,  by  James  Rignall  ^^fhtd^v,  Professor  of  Greek  Archae- 
ology and  Art. 

HISTORY,  by  James  Harvey  Robinson,  Professor  of  History. 

ECONOMICS,  by  Henry  Rogers  Seager,  Professor  of  Political  Economy. 

POLITICS,  by  Charles  A.  Beard,  Adjunct  Professor  of  Politics. 

JURISPRUDENCE,  by  Munroe  Smith,  Professor  of  Roman  Law  and 
Comparative  Jurisprudence. 

SOCIOLOGY,  by  Franklin  Henry  Giddings,  Professor  of  Sociology. 

PHILOSOPHY,  by  Nicholas  Murray  Butler,  President  of  the  University. 

PSYCHOLOGY,  by  Robert  S.  Woodworth,  Adjunct  Professor  of  Psy- 
chology. 

METAPHYSICS,  by  Frederick  J.  E.  Woodbridge,  Johnsonian  Professor  of 
Philosophy. 

ETHICS,  by  John  Dewey,  Professor  of  Philosophy. 

PHILOLOGY,  by  A.  V.  W.  Jackson,  Professor  of  Indo-Iranian  Lan- 
guages. 

LITERATURE,  by  Harry  Thurston  Peck,  Anthon  Professor  of  the  Latin 
Language  and  Literature. 

These  lectures  are  published  by  the  Columbia  University  Press  separately  in 
pamphlet  form,  at  the  uniform  price  of  twenty-five  cents,  by  mail  twenty-eight 
cents.     Orders  will  be  taken  for  the  separate  pamphlets,  or  for  the  whole  series. 

Address 
THE  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

Columbia  University,  New  York 


UNIVERSITY   OF   CALIFORNIA   LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 

STAMPED   BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period. 


MAR    4   t932 


m2 

OfC  IS  1942 


203480 


